The GOP Debate: A Forensic-Scatological Analysis
By Steven WishniaFrom the December 8, 2007 issue | Posted in National | Email this article
Out of some combination of morbid curiosity, depressive masochism, and journalism as forensic scatology, I watched the Republican CNN/ YouTube debate Nov. 28. If this nest of bigots and psychos (both the candidates and most of the questioners) seriously represents a significant portion of America, I despair for my country.
The GOP fetishes of God, gays, guns and tax cuts are still prevalent, but the main story is that Latino immigrants are now Public Enemy #2 with a bullet, surpassing marriage-minded queers, bumping Black dope fiends down to #4 and conceivably even threatening to knock Muslim terrorists out of the #1 spot. “Sanctuary city” is the new Two Minutes Hate buzzword. Oh well, when the Democrats abandon any vestige of being a pro-labor party, the “populism of fools” will fill the vacuum.
The debate within the Republicans on immigration comes down to one question: “Should we pander to our corporate backers’ need for cheap labor, or to our political base’s fear and hatred of Mexicans?” Door #2 seems to be ahead.
After the other Republicans attacked him for not barring illegal immigrants’ kids from public schools, not denying them emergency room treatment, and not deporting ones who reported crimes, Rudy Giuliani tried to prove his anti-immigrant bona fides by boasting how he sent Haitians back (to the Duvalier dictatorship or drowning). Meanwhile, Mitt Romney raved about deporting them all, but defended hiring illegals to work on his lawn by saying he had outsourced the job to a contractor and couldn’t be responsible for who they hired.
Romney is one of the most thoroughly smarmy and phony human beings I have ever observed. If the Republican Party were dominated by born-again Satanists, he’d be proclaiming his conversion to the dark side and lambasting his rivals for wearing their pentagrams crooked. John McCain did nail him, though, when Romney said he was against torture, but wouldn’t ban waterboarding, contending that terrorists shouldn’t know what we can’t do to them. “This isn’t 24,” McCain told him.
Even though I know very well that Giuliani is a racist authoritarian bully, seeing him live is still scary. The man could conceivably out-Vader Dick Cheney. His two facial expressions are a wife-beater scowl and a jowl-splitting smirk. It was amusing watching him try to explain why African-Americans should vote Republican. The former mayor, who has never won more than 20 percent of the Black vote in an election, cobbled together unconvincing babble about education and school choice. (If there were a God, the ghosts of Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond would have materialized out of the wall of logos behind the candidates to wreak revenge.)
McCain, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee all showed degrees of humanity. McCain spoke unequivocally against torture. But he’s solidly pro-war and believes that the problem in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam, is politicians who won’t “let us win.” Paul is strongly against the Iraq war — and got some applause for that. But he exudes the scent of wingnuttery, like he’s spent far too much of his life listening to far-right conspiracy theorists rant about the Trilateralists and the North American Union.
Huckabee was the only GOP candidate who seems to have any conception of what life is like for working-class people, but he would replace the income tax with a stiff national sales tax that works against lowincome earners. He also (essentially) said that God told him it was okay to execute people. (What would Jesus do? He probably wouldn’t be the Roman soldier out there with a hammer and nails.)
And if brains were dynamite, the guerrillas in Iraq would not use Fred Thompson for an IED.
Tom Tancredo is the American Jean Marie Le Pen, a hater with a one-track mind whose ideology is oozing into more mainstream realms. When a mother in Pittsburgh asked what he’d do about lead paint on Chineseimport toys, he went on about blocking … illegal immigration. (I think that when he says “difficulty assimilating,” it’s code for “spic.”)
Duncan Hunter said gays shouldn’t serve in the military because troops with “Judeo- Christian values” wouldn’t accept them. The first achievement touted in his commercials is his role in building the Berlin Wall along the Mexican border.
The looniest questioners included one who inquired if the candidates believed “every single word in the Bible.” (In the 30 seconds Giuliani spent fumbling for a politically correct answer, I thought of four commandments he’s broken.) Another one wanted to know which candidates owned guns and what their favorite model was.
One silver lining: I don’t think I heard Giuliani say “9/11” more than twice.
11 Responses to “The GOP Debate: A Forensic-Scatological Analysis”
December 8th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
. . . I really, really, really think that Ron Paul is the most sane of all the presidential candidates. In the GOP, for sure. And, well, compared to Hillary . . .
. . . Hillary is- well, she’s just frightening.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
So because Ron Paul acknowledges that think-tank groups like the CFR and Trilateral Commission exist, he’s a conspiracy theorist?
And because he believes something that the former Mexican President has already confirmed, cites legislation from Texas, Oklahoma, and US Congress, and researches the evidence, he’s a conspiracy theorist?
Tisk.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
So THATS what the liberal version of fear mongering is…
December 9th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Ron Paul is not conspiracy theorist–the NAU is real–go the CFR website and search “building a north american community”. The mayor of manitoba in canada is on tape admiting that there is going to be a trans-national highway through north america which will create jobs for his local residents. STOP SMEARING RON PAUL. He is the only hope for america.
Thanks
nathaniel C
December 9th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Hmmm. I guess anyone that believes that enforcing and obeying the laws of the land (by the people and for the people) are now classified as (here we go…) bigots, racists, psychos, Jean Marie Le Pen wanna bee’s, bully’s, wife beaters and anti-immigrant bona fide’s….and other choice descriptions to numerous to list. Whoever wrote this piece was shocked enough into not taking credit for its contents. And at the bottom its says to subscribe to the Independent?
December 9th, 2007 at 2:59 am
As a Liberal party supporter here in Canada I have to say that I have honestly never seen left-wing fear mongering before I visited this site. I find it disturbing and sincerely hope that it doesn’t head north like a delusional optimist at the Rio-Grande. Second of all: Manitoba is a province (roughly equivalent to one of your states) and as such does not have a mayor but rather a Premier. Thirdly: your story’s denouncement of Ron Paul as a “far-right conspiracy theorist” is completely inaccurate and unfounded. The security and prosperity partnership threatens the sovereignty of both our nations, and the council on foreign relations has outlined plans for a superhighway extending from Mexico to Canada. These are steps in the direction of a North American Union (no offense guys but i don’t feel like sleeping inside an elephant anymore than your elephant wants to have bad raw caribou burrito gas from swallowing us whole). If I were an american I would support Ron Paul in spite of my center left ideologies because he has the best monetary, economic, fiscal, and foreign policies of anyone running for president. We are paying off our debt and you should consider doing the same.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:28 am
With all due respect, whoever wrote this nonsense is an idiot. I am sorry to say this, but people who do not do any research before putting something into words certainly qualify for that distinction. How can somebody ignore resolutions passed in the Texas legislature, utterances of the Mexican President and web sites which talk about the NAU? Ron Paul is not the first or only person to talk about it. He explained very clearly that it is an ideological battle more than conspiratorial. You do not research, do not listen to what people say, do not understand economics ( “Huckabee was the only GOP candidate who seems to have any conception of what life is like for working-class people”), because Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about sound money, weakening dollar and how it affects middle and low income group. Still somehow this guy as an “analyst”!!!
December 9th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Relax folks this is meant to be light hearted, Not surprising Huckabee is at the fore front, one of the few that has a sense of humor. He also is the only one to attend the PBS televised Morgan University debate on Black Issues. Maybe the GOP doesn’t need Blacks, Latinos, or any other minority to win, and can get there by Fear and Hate, but George Bush won with 40% of Latinos, and that number is now 23% and he didn’t have the popular vote. I don’t think the country needs devision, folks want affordable health care, a solution to the subprime mess and an end to the war in Iraq. If the GOP doesn’t address these things they aren’t in the ball game.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Read Dr. Paul’s answers and positions on these complex issues before you whip out your rapier pen to impress us with your insight and analysis.
The majority of Americans has got so sadly far down the path of bumper ssticker analysis and sound bite information that they apparently are incapable of actually trying to find out what a candidate’s positions really are.
No one, and I repeat, no one of the candidates except Dr. Paul, has taken the time to fully explain the reasons behind his positions and how to reasonably toward the ideals of liberty, freedom and fiscal responsibility.
You would do yourself and everyone else a big favor if you would rationally explain your opposition to his true policy positions, rather than dismiss your own knee jerk impression of what you thought you heard someone say he believes, with name calling like wingnut.
People who resort to dismissive name calling usually are at a loss for words because they have very little grasp of the issue upon which they are attempting to expound.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:09 am
“But he exudes the scent of wingnuttery, like he’s spent far too much of his life listening to far-right conspiracy theorists rant about the Trilateralists and the North American Union.” ~ This is not a real newspaper, shame on you all for carrying the name ‘Indypendent’ when cointelpro operatives obviously has you all in lock-step control. The Bilderberg Group, Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are not only real but hurling this country and the world towards total fascism. If any of you can’t see the signs, you are not real journalists or desperately out of the touch with the real world…
































December 8th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Steven,
Your understanding of the Republican base feelings on immigration is woefully inadequate or just plain wrong. The base is not prejudicial toward Mexicans in any way. We are prejudicial to people whose first U.S. act is to break our laws by means of their entry into this nation. The additional fact that this is a national security issue also raises concerns.
Call us cold hearted or bigoted, but either accusation is completely wrong.